T Nation

The Matrix


#1

matrix - my opinion great film seen many times. Dunno how it popped into mind but was cooking and thinking about the films lol.

anyway is Neo a program created by the machines? (obviously hes a human)
because in the second film when he has the conversation with the creator of the entire world it mentions that they (machines) have destroyed the city several times and then rebuilt it and that Neo has been there before etc etc etc.

no1 was easily the best. eeveryone can agree.

but opinions go


#2

i think its a referance to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return something Nietzsche mentions quite a lot


#3

^ If this is true next time around I hope to spend More time fucking, Care a great amount less and spend way more time on Math.


#4

Did you wake up one morning and realize everything was shit?


#5

I'ma say:

There Real World is not seen; we see the Matrix construct, the "real / Zion" construct, and are told about another system which is tied to other functions of the Machine Empire (the Source). This seems to be implied by Neo's observation of Code and interaction with the Machines outside of the Matrix construct.

By allowing the Smith virus to absorb him, Neo is being reintegrated into the Matrix operating system in the same manner as was asked of him by the Architect, due to the volume of Smith information versus non-Smith information in the Matrix.

The Matrix construct and the Zion construct represent systematized order and and chaos respectively. Neither is completely free, in that deviation from one is integration into the other. Neo and Smith then would represent freedom from each concept as they exist in each system.

The evolution of the Matrix constructs from the heavenly to the hellish to the fantastic to the mundane imply entropic degradation of the system which runs the Matrix construct. The recreation of the system implies a cyclic nature to the system which runs the Matrix construct.


#6

Am I right in saying even the people in Zion are in a matrix. This would be the only way to explain how neo has powers when escaping the sentinels in the "real world" at the end of the 2nd film?

So no part of the film is outside a virtual construct?


#7

This is a nice read in my mind.

The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity ? this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

Why is this fear so universal ? so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

Of course not.

This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

That which we create to ?serve? us ends up ruling us.

The US government ?by and for the people? now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

That which we create to ?serve? us ends up ruling us.

The problem with the ?state as servant? thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically.

The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.

Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.

If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.

However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.

When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.

The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in ? and owning.

The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class ? the farmers ? kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class ? the police, slave hunters, and general sadists ? and the propagandizing class ? the priests, intellectuals, and artists.

This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities.

This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution.

The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional ?liberties? could make their livestock astoundingly more productive.

When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.

The next stop after ?free range? is not ?freedom.?

The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of ?free range serfdom.?

Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were ? and are ? well paid to conceal this reality.

The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of ?enthusiasm.?

State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay.

Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of ?enemies,? the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about ?outsiders? and ?immigrants,? and so on.

It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

You are allowed certain liberties ? limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation ? not because your government approves of these rights in principle ? since it constantly violates them ? but rather because ?free range livestock? is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.

It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy ? these are all livestock management approaches.

Some work well for long periods ? state capitalism ? and some work very badly ? communism.

They all fail eventually, because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock.

The recent growth of ?freedom? in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

Thus you are ?allowed? to leave ? but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are ?free? to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a ?license,? which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to ?love? the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

The idea that democracy and some sort of ?social contract? justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous.

If you say to a slave that his ancestors ?chose? slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say:

?If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave.?

This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.

Statism is not a philosophy.

Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles.

Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership.

Statism is an excuse for violence.

Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices.

Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have ?alleviated.?

Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.

The opposite of superstition is not another superstition, but the truth.

The opposite of ideology is not a different ideology, but clear evidence and rational principles.

The opposite of superstition and ideology ? of statism ? is philosophy.

Reason and courage will set us free.

You do not have to be livestock.

Take the red pill.

Wake up.
http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2008/11/true-news-13-statism-is-dead-part-3.html


#8

Interesting read erasmus. But really its the price you pay to be part of society.

Why would anyone choose to leave the farm. When society provides so much more than a life of solitude & survival.

Ignorance is bliss.


#9

I didn't think the movie was that deep.


#10

When i think of the matrix and all of its awesomeness, i like to pretend they didn't make a 2nd or 3rd movie.


#11

Then you didn't pay attention. It was a Jesus story, simply put...crossed with discussion of philosophy. I would go as far as to dsay it is the best representation of that concept in our current times in media.

I give the first film a ton of credit. It will be one of those they watch 50 years from now in schools to discuss.


#12

If we are only talking about the first movie I have a question.

If neo was - Jesus
Morpheus- John the baptist
Cyphis- Judus

Who was God? Who was Satan?


#13

The Wachowskis have never acknowledged The Invisibles as an influence, even though they had invited the comic's creator Grant Morrison to contribute a story for their website. Morrison -- who actually liked The Matrix -- says he "was told by people on the set that Invisibles books were passed around for visual reference." His reaction to the second and third movies? "They should have kept on stealing from me."


#14

That is pretty much it. Like zion is just another matrix that the machines have control over and neo is a program put into both matrix's to eliminate something/change something. i think vash said it the best with chaos and freedom.

What makes me believe that zion is another matrix is that smith can penetrate it, but not in physical form. It could of been possible that the machines created neo because smith was sick of the matrix and wanted out and they sensed a revolt? but then why would they try and destroy him when he was entering the machine city?

Professor X you are right. People will still be having this discussion in 50 years.

Four60 - i believe god was the orical and satan was mr smith.


#15

Mr. Smith took orders, at best be would represent the Romans or the establishment in the first movie.

The Orical yeah I guess the Orical could be God.


#16

I didn't think reloaded was all that bad. Revolutions, I'm in agreement was cringe-worthy


#17

TLDR

only joking, that was really interesting


#18

Or the Matrix "was God".


#19

In the first film mr smith definitly took orders. But throughout the rest of the series he could of represented satan as he had broken away from the machines grip. Same as god having control over Lucifer until lucifer decided not to take shit lol


#20

So the Matrix was god